Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act has a general block of any agreement that puts in place a trade restriction.  On this basis, it would appear that all non-competition clauses in India are null and void. However, the Indian Supreme Court has clarified that certain non-competition clauses may be in the interests of trade and commerce, and such clauses are not prohibited by Section 27 of the Contract Act and are therefore valid in India.  In particular, only clauses supported by a clear objective, considered beneficial for trade and trade, survive this test. For example, a co-founder of a start-up who has signed a non-compete clause may be, but if a junior software developer or call center employee signs a non-compete clause with the employer, this may not apply. There is also a strong argument that a worker dismissed for refusing to sign an unreasonable contract so as not to compete may be entitled to relief of charges against the employer in violation of that public policy. The results of these public policy claims vary from state to state. A non-compete agreement is a contract in which a worker promises to no longer compete with an employer after the end of the employment period. These agreements also prohibit the employee from passing on proprietary information or secrets to other parties during or after the employment.
The majority of U.S. states recognize and enforce different forms of non-compete agreements. Some states, such as California, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, prohibit non-compete agreements for employees or prohibit non-competition clauses, except in limited cases.  This is why non-competition bans are popular with companies working in states where they are licensed.  They are widespread in commercial radio stations and television channels, particularly radio personalities and television personalities working for media groups. For example, if a radio or television station ceases to be licensed or licensed by a channel in the media market where they work, they cannot work for another competing channel in the same market until their contract with their former labour chain expires.  If you choose to leave an employer with whom you have an agreement not to compete, the employer must do nothing. In this case, be sure to come up with a type of agreement with the employer so you can do whatever you want.
Also make sure that the employer exempts you from your non-competition agreement with a signed document. Non-competition agreements are applied in Illinois where the agreement is an ancillary relationship with a valid relationship (employment, sale of a business, etc.) and (1) must not be greater than what is necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the employer (2), to which the worker must not impose undue severity and (3) cannot harm the public.  Although reasonable restrictions in the space and time of the non-competition agreement are not expressly imposed by law, they tend to be seen as a measure of the extent of the non-competition obligation greater than what is necessary to protect the legitimate commercial interest of the employer.  There are only limited situations where a reasonable non-competition agreement may be valid in California. The applicability of these agreements depends on the law of each state. However, as a general rule, with the exception of invention transfer agreements, they are subject to the same analysis as other ACCs.  Third, in order to enforce a NCC, an applicant must demonstrate that the NCC is appropriate from the point of view of sound public policy. Virginia is not in favour of employment restrictions and, therefore, NCCs are generally maintained against public policy, unless they are strict, as listed above. In Virginia, a CNC does not violate public policy if its restrictions do not create a monopoly on the services offered by the employer or create a lack of skills offered by the employee.  In contract law, there is a non-competition clause (often NCC)